Slashdot Mirror


Surveillance Camera Network Coming To New York?

yapplejax writes "New York City is seeking funding for a multi-million dollar surveillance system modeled on the one used in London. Police in the city already make use of the network of cameras in airports, banks, department stores and corporate offices — an arrangement used in cities across the country. This new project would augment that network with a city-wide grid. 'The system has four components: license plate readers, surveillance cameras, a coordination center, and roadblocks that can swing into action when needed. The primary purpose of the system is deterrence, and then an investigative tool.' But is it necessary? Steven Swain from the London Metropolitan Police states 'I don't know of a single incident where CCTV has actually been used to spot, apprehend or detain offenders in the act.'"

5 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Uh 'supposedly' by dave420 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're confusing the Congestion Charge cameras with the City of London's "Ring of Steel". Those are not for charging folks, but to look at all cars entering/leaving the city, and to see if there are any suspicious movements. Data is not logged, nothing is stored in the national police computer - numberplates are simply checked against the police database, and any stolen cars or cars with incorrect license plates are flagged, and patrols on the streets are notified. How is that "Big Brother"?

  2. Re:Uh 'supposedly' by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Informative

    How are they going to justify the Big Brother system in New York? Not only do they not have such a fee, but if they did it would be easily implemented by tolls on the bridges and tunnels that are the only way of getting to Manhattan from outside.
    There actually is talk of possibly instating a congestion charge in Manhattan, but it would only be for higher-traffic areas (i.e. midtown) which is why they're pushing the idea of surveillance cameras rather than bridge/tunnel tolls.
  3. Are you from London? by weierstrass · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, I'm not confusing the two. The article is. Presumably you yourself don't know anything about the subject, since you are too.

    The 'Ring of Steel' is not a 'a network of thousands of surveillance cameras that line London's intersections and neighborhoods'. It's a bunch of sort-of-roadblocks which are on most vehicle entrances to the City of London - London's financial district, and very different from Central London. By this I mean the road narrows to a single lane with a bend in it to slow down vehicles, and there's a little booth where (sometimes) police sit and watch you. They keep an eye out for suspicious looking vehicles like 'panel vans' or similar which have been used by the IRA for bombings. Often they are unmanned. The cops might occasionally ask you where you're going, but AFAIK there's no routing logging or looking up of number plates.

    There are also cameras as part of the Ring of Steel, but just to film vehicles at these ways in to the City. Note that the Ring only protects the City, which wasn't a target either of the 2005 bombings and failed bombings (except in as much that one of the bombed tube trains, the one at Moorgate, was probably inside the City when the bomb went off), nor of the recent failed firebombings in West Central London. It was set up in the early 90's, when the IRA were very active in London.

    As for the 'network of thousands of surveillance cameras' that they are talking about, well it's difficult to say because there are a lot of CCTV cameras in London, installed by many different organisations; local authorities, traffic cops, companies on their private property etc. But I think it's a fair assumption that they are referring to the Congestion Charge cameras, since there isn't to my knowledge another citywide network of cameras, other than the ones on the public transport system, which obviously don't line 'intersections and neighbourhoods'. These are at every street entrance to the Congestion charge zone, a much much bigger area which covers every part of London that could be said to be central; shopping districts, theatre district, all main govt. buildings, royal palaces etc. and track the number plates of every single car going in and out. They also cover many, many locations inside the zone, to catch people who got in without being recorded or who live in the zone (they still have to pay). There are also vans fitted with cameras which drive around filming number plates. The data is kept for quite a while, for billing and penalty recovery purposes among others. There are in fact guys who walk around suburban residential streets outside the zone, taking down all number plates looking for people who have been in the zone without paying (I've met one on the job). The cameras are kept on all the time, even though there is no charge after 7:30 pm or in before the morning rush hour.

    When the system was set up, the Greater London Authority promised they would not pass on the information to the police. Then they started to allow access to the police to look at the video afterwards if requested. Since the recent failed terrorism attacks, they now allow the police to watch in real time, but only for preventing and investigating 'threats to national security' - they can't use the info against normal crime.
    HTH.

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:Are you from London? by dave420 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm on the same page as you are - I was trying to reconcile the faulty comparison between London's Ring of Steel (the real Police camera network) and the proposed NYC version, as the comparison was faulty, I was doomed to fail from the beginning - thanks for being polite in addressing my argumentative short-comings ;) I'm aware of the differences, especially between the CC camera network and the City's network.

      I lived in london for 8 years until May of this year, so I'm quite familiar with the CC and City.

  4. So what? by ibm1130 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The vast majority of police work is forensic in nature. So what if the cameras don't result in the suspect being nabbed while the crime is in progress. Whether the suspect is nabbed on the scene or elsewhere the fact remains they were identified and apprehended. Good luck arguing "I din't do it" when the camera has you on the scene and in the act. I don't expect privacy in a public place and if I'm somewhere I ought not to be doing something illegal any right to privacy is, I would argue, overidden by public safety concerns.
    Having said that I will guarantee that the cameras inq uestion will eventually be used to track vehicle presence in the city for revenue purposes. Its inevitable and utterly predictable.

    IBM